Communism is a great idea we all have when we are 7 or 8 years old when we see that all our friends have some fancy toy. We then think to ourselves, why cant everyone have a fancy toy? But the truth of it is, no matter how hard we try, it doesn't work. This is because if your Doctor is paid just as much as the guy who gets your order wrong at BurgerKing, your probably going to die because rather than a wrong order, you will have the wrong organ removed. This is because no one is actually going to take the time to learn medicine if the guy running the cash register makes the same amount.

The next question to ask yourself is what about wellfare or other similar programs, where the government pays the "less fortunate" for being poor (A.K.A. Socialism). This doesn't work because the guy working at BurgerKing gets paid less than the guy on wellfare, so the guy that works at BurgerKing quits and gets paid to do nothing as long as he looks poor. This then leads to an uneducated workforce. The uneducated workforce becomes sheep to the slaughter when a more intelligent country (Country B) decides to make some new product that the uneducated people want, this then leads to Country B controlling all of the uneducated people's money in Country A, which is coming from the government, which means that Country B takes over control of all funds the uneducated Country A once had, leading to depression and death of Country A with the exception of those people who manipulated the situation in their favor to get in on what Country B did or something else in similar function. This is why the USA needs to get off the OIL High and use other sources such as wind, wave, and solar. It is also why Bush decided to go to war over oil. Not the best idea... ever.... but it was something.

Well... basically everything. And nothing. It depends on the government implementing it. Russia was "communist" and failed - because it wasn't really communist. China is pretty damn successful (they're exporting like crazy) because they're implementing it in a lax way. But they're not really "communist" either.

If with "communist", you mean the government described by the original Marx and Engel, forget it: It's not going to happen. It's outdated. We live in a post-industrial society. Information is more important than goods by now. We have machines for that. Marx was hoping for the worker's revolution - the time is WAY past. 1846 AFAIK was the date that he thought it was going to take place. It's been more than 150 years, and still no "communist revolution" has happened. And the era of industrial communism is virtually over. China maybe, but even they are developing into a more information and services based economy.

If with "communist" you mean an economic system based on the distribution of services and goods to everyone equally, it's not going to work out either. The system is based on trust - trust on the government to implement a policy that will not put their ego in front of the people. So far, I haven't heard of a single government actually implementing this. So really - there's never been a country that has been, economically at least, communist.

Another problem with economic communism is, that you need people to work. No matter what. Be it for information based servives, for industrial labor, for the public sector, whatever. Even in the unlikely case that somehow everyone gets equal pay and equal benefits from the government, it is BOUND to fail - there would be no motivation to work, the economy would slow down to a halt. Also, there's no incentive for investing into new stuff, no incentive for start-ups, no incentive for export.

A compromise between communism and capitalism would be socialism. Socialism, however, HAS failed. History shows that socialistic states (USSR and it's satellite states) do fail. Socialists assume that everyone starts out equally and then does the best from there onwards (i.e. minimum wage, even for people not working). However, it requires constant export and a good balance of trade, or the economy will impoverish itself. Unlike in capitalism, the economy cannot be fully integrated into international markets, because the state controls most of what goes on in the economy, at least on an internal level.

Here's a diagram of my "compromise". It has several flaws though, which I'll get into later.

The f(x) thing is basically a function that takes into account the current internal economic situation, the actual work the consumer has done, and the money available to the government. It will not reach 0, there is a minimum which is paid even IF there is no work done (just enough to keep you off the streets, but little enough to give you motivation to find a job). It also "removes" taxes and the dreadful deadline to fill out your forms, with the government ensuring that there is as little taxation as possible. It's in it's best interest, if not the economy will go sour, people will stop working (no money? HEY... I'm NOT working for nuttin'), there will be no more returns from the companies set up, basically the gov. will be stuck with ~ 1/3 the money in the system, the rest being in the companies and with consumers.

Flaws/Issues:

Consumers MUST consume. If they don't... Investment money is lost, or the money stays with the consumer and rots away in a bank vault. Of course, he could also invest into a private firm.

Here we get the problem of PRIVATE firms which are a major source of cash leakage out of the system. Repossessing them seems a bit harsh, so how about heavier taxes once they reach a certain size?

There MUST be a good labor market. Employ too little people, and the system crashes, with the government owning all the money. Again, the government creates jobs by investing into start-ups, which brings me to the next point:

There MUST be a benevolent government. That's the key. If the government goes all egomanic, there's a good chance there will be no more investment, the function is abused (essentially slave labor), deficit.

The nations must be able to support itself and keep the money in the state. Or, alternatively, a good balance of trade must be present. Otherwise it's the same money cycling all over, with no net growth.

Capitalism is just as bad. If people manage it too much, constrain the banks, make bad choices, keep money out of the cash flow, it's just like the "government" in communism keeping the good stuff to itself. Money has to be kept in flow. Communism kept it behind an iron curtain. Socialism tries to accommodate, but ultimately, it's a cheap compromise relying on the hope that the system won't crash and that there will be export.

The fundamental flaw with Socialism is that it cannot be forcefully imposed upon peoples who do not wish to be governed as such. As a person who has had both money, and no money to the point of being homeless, i much rather prefer to have money (the more the better). I started having money again when I changed my mindset, it's like the adage goes, if you give a man a fish he feasts for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he'll never go wanting.' I hate government entitlement programs with a bloody passion and here's why, It teaches people to game the system, and it discourages productivity, risk, profit and incentive.

How can a doctor live in the same house as a street cleaner and eat the same slop as him?I believe that everybody should be equal in right, not results.Communism is a form of government, an ideology, it can't make all people be born equal and know exactly the same people and have exactly the same opportunity as everyone else.I think that some people have way to much and some people have way to little, it should be equalized a little bit.

It should be equalized according to skill and ability to perform that skill. If you contribute nothing to society, why should society contribute back to you?

That is why I hate the well-fare system. So many people just mooch off the state and do nothing at all. They seriously need to put a limit on that, like for example, you have 3 months maximum to find a job if you are on wel-fare because of an accident. (3 months after you recover that is).

Might seem a bit harsh, but honestly, total equality is a disgusting thing. If anyone tries to tell me I'm no better than the bum that just shit himself because he just drank 10 bottles of straight vodka after vomiting all over the place, or that I'm "equal" to the trash that sitting in jail for killing his wife and children because they cookied his food wrong, you're a psychopath.

Everyone should have an "equal" opportunity. All public schools should be held up to the same standards (something that REALLY needs to be nationalized). Private schools should of course, still exists for those who can afford a higher level of learning, or those who excel enough to be worthy of receiving a scholarship.

There's just way too much mooching and laziness going around today, especially in the states.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votesinsomaniacal.blog.com

IMO if a boss is staying in his office answering phones and watching ppl working is cause he was smather or luckyer than others. This is the base of the progress. if i want to get more money i need to think and think till i get an idea that makes some money. And if i see people getting more money than me a wish starts in me that a day i will have more money i future. No wish going to do nothing to improve my incoming no new idea no progress.

And if I'm smart, I've studied for a long time to school why i need to pay more taxes to help lazy people that had forfeit school and went to work for low incoming?. If i work hard and i get a promotion with the comunism i get more taxes to pay to help the other workers that weren't promoted cause they're lazy. So due to human nature i start to think why should i work hard if all others are not.

Comunism is also against new technology. Like nuclear they hope all planet get surrounded by solars centrals and no more nuclear. They have fear cause cernobyl broke. so if a central with no experts in it, builded so bad, no security into, break all other that are sure have to close. And when i ask them why they don't want they say they can explode. yeah right EXPLODE....

tkdhkdmaster wrote:I'm an american and I love my freedom. But wouldnt we live in a better place if everyone was somewhat controlled. The wealth of the 5% of world who has 95% of the money would be spread amongst everyone. That would make the entire world middle class if not better. Why not even eliminate currency. If everyone is forced to do a decent job, they can get paid what they need and then some. They could get paid their food and housing, and everyone would be able to get some kind of ration of wants, like television and stuff. Would the world be so bad if communism were set into place?

Sorry if im repeating anyone but i only red the first post, lazy me,First of all a communist or socialist society would be perfect for any country no matter their region or location, BUT the problem is no matter if your black white republican democrat communist or socialist there will be some corruption if the government controlled all the money. Thats why in China (a communist country) you can see government officials living like kings others in house and apartments and some on the streets. Government is just man's infinite struggle for utopia.

Too the mooching and laziness guy-I know someone on welfare and it is not fair to say they are mooching. When your parents leave you in the middle of the night halfway through a pregnancy in high school with a job (she paints pictures in rooms) you are NOT mooching.

My opnion is that there's nothing to do with "human nature" or whattever! I think this "human nature" argument is just invalid, as we can se human behavior varies from place to place due to cultural and material conditions.

It's not so simple to talk about communism without explaining the whole Marxism system and our real experiences in world-wide politics.

I am aware that when you think about capitalism you associate that with USA but thats wrong .It'll just keep you from seeing whats really truth behind the diplomatic bullshit.

I would like to thank m4tt for his comment and expand on it a little because I think he brings up some good points. Let's start with the "human nature" argument. I won't attempt to dissect the human experience or explain the phenomenon of man's multifaceted mindset for one reason and one reason alone; "human nature" cannot be simplified into a single word like "greedy" or "stupid." To do so is to misunderstand, not only human nature, but humans. Studies suggest that DNA may contribute significantly to our predispositions, including predispositions to behave a certain way, possibly even "greedily". These predispositions tend to vary from person to person and mean very little without an environment which calls them forward. Given the enormous differences in both people's DNA and their environments and taking into account the number of possible combinations of DNA and environment for 6.7 billion people, there is no way we can boil "human nature" down into one pseudo-emotion like "greed." This is a pretty long explanation to what I think we all already knew- that we are not quite as simple as some might like to believe.

I'd also like to quickly address what I believe are some misconceptions about communism. There seems to be a belief that communism means everybody will have exactly the same thing as everyone else no matter what. This is simply not true. Marx says it better than I can in a quote which I believe was previously brought up but, obviously, not read by many. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is according to his need and nothing more. So we should all sleep well tonight knowing that the nightmare of society-slaying free-loaders is not the reality of Communism.

Lastly, I'd like to talk about the "individuality" argument. There seems to be an awful lot of people who are under the impression that communism somehow destroys man's ability to be an individual. They paint a picture of a communist government which behaves like the over-zealous mother of new twins, dressing them up in the same frilly, pink dress and teaching them to sing the same songs in perfect unison. As far as I'm aware, the goal of a communist society is not to dress all of its members up in matching clothes. The goal of communism is not to tell you what your favorite color needs to be. The goal of communism is not to make sure that you all have the same haircut or read the same books or think the same things. The goal of communism is equality and equality and individuality are not mutually exclusive. Individuality is not something that just goes away because of a political or economic system and since communism doesn't actively work to restrict individuality, we can all stop worrying about big, bad communism stealing that which makes us human- and I'm pretty sure that that which makes us human is not the size of our wallet. What restricts individuality is the system which treats the poor and middle class as nothing but tools- a means to a selfish end (I'll give you a hint- it starts with a "C" and ends with an "apitalism")

Finally, I apologize for my rather lengthy post and thank those of you who manged to read through the whole thing. Thus ends my discourse

Nemo_sum said something that bears repeating: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's communism, plain and simple.

Here's another aphorism about Communism: He who does not work, neither shall they eat (Lenin). That was a really important idea that a lot of people forgot (and forget, see above).

There are a few Howard Roark's above who think that they're obviously going to be bestowed a great heap of wealth if they just uphold the established order. As if noone else works hard, except for those who are elevated to positions of disproportionate wealth. Real tired of hearing that tired line about the poor deserving what they get in a capitalistic society because they are too feeble-minded or lazy.

"I'm going to get into your sister. I'm going to get my hands on your daughter." ~Gatito